Partly allowed

K.Padmanabhan v. Balaji

Madras HC6 Jul 2016CRL OP/8308/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought an order directing the Commissioner and Inspector of Police to register a case based on a complaint alleging cheating regarding retirement benefits. The Court directed the police to examine the complaint and register the case if a cognizable offence is made out, then disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 3 and 4 directed to peruse the petitioner's complaint dated 15.03.2014 and register the case if a cognizable offence is made out.

K.Padmanabhan Vs Balaji — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.07.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶5

Crl.O.P No.8308 of 2014

¶6

K.Padmanabhan
2. P.Sathyanarayanan
3. P.Sumathi
4. D.Narayanan
5. Arunprakash
6. Krishnamurthy
7. Mohan Babu .. Petitioners
Vs.
1. Balaji
2. G.Sunil Kumar
3. The Commissioner of Police
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
4. The Inspector of Police
G3 Kilpauk Police Station,
Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to direct the respondents 3 and 4, i.e., (1) The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai and (2) The Inspector of Police, G3 Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai, to register the case based on the compliant, dated 15.03.2014 given by the first petitioner and file a final report.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Vijay Baskar For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivaramkumar

¶9

Govt. Advocate (Crl.side)

¶10

for R3 and R4

¶11

ORDER This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to direct the respondents 3 and 4, i.e., (1) The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai and (2) The Inspector of Police, G3 Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai, to register the case based on the compliant, dated 15.03.2014 given by the first petitioner and file a final report.

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

It is averred in the petition that the petitioner gave a complaint before the respondent police on 15.03.2014, alleging that he has been cheated the entire retiral benefits and no action has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

been taken by the respondent police. Therefore, the present Original Petition has been filed.

¶15

Learned Government Advocate submits that the complaint of the petitioner, dated 15.03.2014 has been treated as petition and enquiry is going on.

¶16

On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondents 3 and 4 are directed to peruse the contents of the compliant of the petitioner, dated 15.03.2014 and if any cognizable offence is made out, further, directed to register the case and proceed further, as per law.

¶17

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

¶18

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS J )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1. The Commissioner of Police
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
2. The Inspector of Police
G3 Kilpauk Police Station,
Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
+1 cc to Mr.N.Vijaya Baskar,Advocate,sr.38431.
ak(co)
krd 21/7
Crl.O.P No.8308 of 2014

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Padmanabhan v. Balaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Padmanabhan v. Balaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Parameswari, F/59 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police, E-4

R.Palaniappan, M/a 60, Vs State Rep.by Inspector of

Ponnusamy Vs the Superintendent of Police

Seenie Verghese Vs the Inspector of Police

D.Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Saravanan, S/O.Arjunan, Vs the Commissioner of Police